Of all the strange things I have seen posted here, hailed as Bowlines, this is the nearest I have seen.

Yet it is a most strange knot. An Overhand component and a hitch component, arranged to convert the OH almost into a Carrick (so it wont jam), loop legs parallel (but does not respond well to ring loading), Sheetbendesque in the hitch around the bight component. Lovely clamping of the WE.

...and I have to disagree with you, Derek.I'm not so experienced as eric22 to say that the eye shown by siriuso will jam, but I think so, because the Overhand is tighten by the SPart and by one eyeleg. Maybe you are referring to the reversed eye (SPart as the WE and WE as the SPart) [EDIT] : in fact that is a retucked Eskimo Bowline! I am wrong here: I was confused about the similar yChan's post title Y2A and Y3A: this comment was referred to yChan's knot Y3A see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6232.msg41910#msg41910[/EDIT]The nub is the same but they work differently, as in the other example I posted 2 days ago.Ciao,s.

Fundamental to all 'Bowlines' is a functional 'nipping loop' that encircles and squeezes elements within the knot core. This encirclement and squeezing is normally acting on the 2 legs of the collar.

The core of your presentation is based around #46 overhand knot - which is known to jam (and not a 'nipping loop').

A 'nipping loop' is a closed helix that is formed by the overlap of one rope segment over the other (which is loaded at both ends) - and it may have S or Z chirality.

There has to be a strict set of rules to define what [a] 'Bowline' is otherwise, almost any eye knot could attempt to claim the title of 'Bowline'.

EDIT NOTE:I admire your efforts to to prevent the #46 overhand knot from jamming.It remains to open to debate as to the level of resistance to jamming this structure has.I have not tested this structure so I can make no definitive comment.I fully understand Alan Lee's remarks - which are likely derived from the fact that there is no functional nipping loop and instead, the core of the knot is based on #46 (overhand knot) which is known to jam.

Something strange going on here. I have just taken this knot in 6mm Nylon braid (MBS 800kg) and loaded it to 300kg (error margin estimated at +/- 5kg) using a 100kg mass and a 3:1 lever (i.e. double the advised SWL of 160kg).

The structure does not contain an OH Component. Although the knot starts with an OH, this is reconfigured by the reworking of the WE into the cross leg variant of the Carrick Component which is stabilised by a Simple Hitch Component. This configuration should be highly stable and highly resistant to jamming.

My repeated tests in this cordage showed no sign of jamming, the knot opening as easily as a Carrick Loopknot.

Something strange going on here. I have just taken this knot in 6mm Nylon braid (MBS 800kg) and loaded it to 300kg (error margin estimated at +/- 5kg) using a 100kg mass and a 3:1 lever (i.e. double the advised SWL of 160kg).

The structure does not contain an OH Component. Although the knot starts with an OH, this is reconfigured by the reworking of the WE into the cross leg variant of the Carrick Component which is stabilised by a Simple Hitch Component. This configuration should be highly stable and highly resistant to jamming.

My repeated tests in this cordage showed no sign of jamming, the knot opening as easily as a Carrick Loopknot.

How is it possible you are managing to jam a Carrick Component?

Derek

Not my mother language I need time to respond, I will not shut up. 謝謝 alanleeknots

In my view, the use of the term 'carrick component' is an arbitrary one.It is possible (ie I am not 100% certain) that you are attempting to draw an analogy between the core function of #1439 Carrick bend and yChan's presentation.

What you [possibly] observe as a 'carrick component' is (in my observation) a #206 crossing hitch (or crossing knot depending on perspective).

The core of #1439 Carrick bend (in my view) consists of 2 inter-linked crossing hitches.In order for the 2 crossing hitches to remain linked and stable, there must be simultaneous through loading from both SPart's. What is occurring is that the continuation of each SPart traps and clamps the tail of the opposite crossing hitch. The trapping and clamping of the tails is occurring simultaneously in a balancing act.

Further off-topic remarks:There is no functional 'nipping structure' in #1439 Carrick bend - because each crossing hitch is only loaded at one end. It is a balancing act of forces - where the tail of each crossing hitch is simultaneously trapped and clamped.I also believe that a 'capstan effect' also plays a [lesser] role - in that, any potential slippage of a tail is inhibited by the U turn of the tail around its own SPart.

Also, #1439 Carrick bend is a final energy stable state which results from a capsizing event inducing from a particular initial dressing state. Although, it is possible to tie the final energy stable form directly, by inter-linking the 2 crossing hitches (which thereby avoids the capsizing event some knot tyers use to reach the final form).

I have great respect for those who have mastered two major languages when I have only one.

I look forward to reading your findings.

Meantime we might take a look at the images you posted of the knot loaded to ca 30% MBS

In the LHS image we see the SP coming up through the Carrick Component bight turn and continuing up and over the RHS shoulder.

In the RHS image we can see the SP enter the back of the Carrick Component bight turn and we can see that the back of the knot is clear for a bight turn rotation.

I we unload the SP and move it towards the loop legs, we are then able to rotate the bight turn at least 2 radians along the unloaded SP. When the turn and the SP are then rotated back together, the Carrick component is relaxed, in turn releasing the Simple hitch component, which is so simple it simply cannot jam. At that point all the cogging contact surfaces are released and the knot is easily taken apart.

Hi All, Derek, I bring more clearer pictures here, you can see the over hand knot is always in there. Third picture, there is nothing can stop standing part moving and tighten itself, even there is side friction ,the kind of parallel line inside the nob will not border the standing part much. 謝謝 alanleeknots

Hi All, Derek, I bring more clearer pictures here, you can see the over hand knot is always in there. Third picture, there is nothing can stop standing part moving and tighten itself, even there is side friction ,the kind of parallel line inside the nob will not border the standing part much. 謝謝 alanleeknots

Excellent images Alan, and I like your analysis in the third image. But - there is no OH left inside Y2A when it is formed, dressed and set.

When I was setting out to catalogue knots using the Overs Index, I had to start by 'skeletonising the knots and laying them flat. Wiser knotters than I, Geoffrey Budworth, Dan Lehman and Roo all knew that I was facing failure. They all knew that the internal structure of a knot could be distorted into a host of forms, that knots could be morphed from one form to another, dressing to totally obscure forms. For example, you can take a carrick bend and rearrange it to form the Josephine matt, within that mat is not the slightest trace of the carrick component, yet draw out the ends of that bend and the carrick auto dresses itself into the two carrick components - it's one of the few knots that always dresses itself to its ideal form.

And so it is with Y2A, the 'formulae to make it is to make a slipped OH, then thread the WE back in such a way as to turn the OH into a cross leg Carric Component whilemaking itself into a simple hitch. In the formed knot the OH has been converted into the non jamming Carrick form.

I will use memory cord to create this pair of components for you and post images here.

This lovely knot, with its xlCarric Component and full Simple Hitch Component, is clearly not a bowline. But I have to ask, why would you want to lumber this knot with the slur of being a bowline - this knot is massively superior to the bowline.

The making of these knots are trails by using alternative knots/components, in stead of using helix loop. I use #559 Marlingspike Hitch (not #206 Crossing Knot) , or #514 Overhand Knot as the nipping loops for different 'New' bowlines. I agree to Derek's suggestion it is worth exploring.

I name them 'Bowline' because they compose with the elements so shown in #1010 Bowline. While after all views and discussions in this forum, I do not mind if these knots are categorized into 'Bowline' or not. If they fell to achieve the definitations, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).

WE tucking - in Y2A Bwl : WE enters to the eye formed by one leg (in the way different to the Ashley's Loop which I posted in KM 137). To be more secure, the WE should be a round turn instead of just a turn as previous presented. I revised it to 'New Y2A Bowline' and present here. Please refer to this 'New' comer.in Y3A Bwl : WE goes between two legs and enters to the eye formed by one leg.in Yia Bwl : WE tucks in the way of a marlingspike to the Marlingspike Hitch. Finished with a round turn to obtain security though a turn is good for the purpose.

Jamming - Y2A & Y3A Bwls : not sure, because Overhand Knot tightens/encircling/binding the rope not in it?s centre eye, but in one of the opening.Yia Bwl : not sure, because Marlingspike Hitch is used and a round turn WE tucking (can be tied loosely or tight).